Wynne Turner wrote:
I want to know some examples of your reasonable rates you charge for a paid shoot that does NOT benefit you, the photographer just keeps the photos. And for a model with experience. What are reasonable hourly rates for:

1. Fashion/Lifestyle Clothing
2. Fitness
3. Swimwear/Bikini

And do you think it's good to have a 2 hour minimum?

In the vast majority of cases, for those categories, and for a photographer's portfolio rather than for an actual ad, you're going to be doing very well to get $25/hr.  Maybe $40 in LA.  That's not "typical" it's HIGH.  Now, for a commercial client, much more is possible.  Say $50-2,000 an hour.

Art of the nude wrote:

In the vast majority of cases, for those categories, and for a photographer's portfolio rather than for an actual ad, you're going to be doing very well to get $25/hr.  Maybe $40 in LA.  That's not "typical" it's HIGH.  Now, for a commercial client, much more is possible.  Say $50-2,000 an hour.

Nah, $40 an hour for portfolio work isn't really "high" in LA. More like 100.

I know of girls booking non-nude pretty routinely at $75-100 an hour. That really depends on how many hours though. $150 or a two hour shoot, not bad. But I doubt most photographers would pay $600 for a six hour non-nude shoot. Not to say that it doesn't happen, as I'm sure it does, but you probably wouldn't book enough jobs for that to make sense.

Art of the nude wrote:
In the vast majority of cases, for those categories, and for a photographer's portfolio rather than for an actual ad, you're going to be doing very well to get $25/hr.  Maybe $40 in LA.  That's not "typical" it's HIGH.  Now, for a commercial client, much more is possible.  Say $50-2,000 an hour.

I agree.  (Though I can't speak to the L.A. market)  I think people here see the rates the very vocal, more successful models ask for and they get an over inflated idea of what what rates most models are actually accepting. I rarely pay more than $30/hour even for nudes. $15-$20/hour more typically for portfolio or stock.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the following statistics about hourly model rates:

"The median hourly wage of models was $15.83 in May 2010. The median wage is the wage at which half the workers in an occupation earned more than that amount and half earned less. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $9.53 per hour, and the top 10 percent earned more than $28.86 per hour."

(Statistics are based on what those who employ models actually pay them hourly)

Realize these statistics tend to reflect models who are getting regular work, near home, not the traveling art nude models one often sees advertise here.

I couldn't find the 2011 page for some reason, but believe it went up to $17+ per hour in 2011.  I don't think the 2012 data has been published yet.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/models.htm#tab-5

Abbitt Photography wrote:

I agree.  (Though I can't speak to the L.A. market)  I think people here see the rates the very vocal, more successful models ask for and they get an over inflated idea of what what rates most models are actually accepting. I rarely pay more than $30/hour even for nudes. $15-$20/hour more typically for portfolio or stock.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the following statistics about hourly model rates:

"The median hourly wage of models was $15.83 in May 2010. The median wage is the wage at which half the workers in an occupation earned more than that amount and half earned less. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $9.53 per hour, and the top 10 percent earned more than $28.86 per hour."

(Statistics are based on what those who employ models actually pay them hourly)

Realize these statistics tend to reflect models who are getting regular work, near home, not the traveling art nude models one often sees advertise here.

I couldn't find the 2011 page for some reason, but believe it went up to $17+ per hour in 2011.  I don't think the 2012 data has been published yet.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/models.htm#tab-5

I think there is also a misconception that most models charge an hourly rate.

I *have* an hourly rate, in case someone asks for it or wants to do a 2 hour shoot, but generally speaking there is a rate or a specific shoot, and the more hours it is, the less it pays per hour.

Since shooting isn't standardized, these questions are really hard to answer.

Also, the stats on what a model makes per hour don't help much either. The stats on what most occupations make per hour mean more, because you know what a typical businessweek is. A model having a 3 hour shoot is not uncommon, nor is a model having a 14 hour shoot.

Art of the nude wrote:
In the vast majority of cases, for those categories, and for a photographer's portfolio rather than for an actual ad, you're going to be doing very well to get $25/hr.  Maybe $40 in LA.  That's not "typical" it's HIGH.  Now, for a commercial client, much more is possible.  Say $50-2,000 an hour.

K I C K H A M wrote:
Nah, $40 an hour for portfolio work isn't really "high" in LA. More like 100.

I know of girls booking non-nude pretty routinely at $75-100 an hour. That really depends on how many hours though. $150 or a two hour shoot, not bad. But I doubt most photographers would pay $600 for a six hour non-nude shoot. Not to say that it doesn't happen, as I'm sure it does, but you probably wouldn't book enough jobs for that to make sense.

I think that Kickham's figures would apply to models who have a good deal of experience (as opposed to having being around for a while but not having much to show for it), have the right look, are able to pose well, and have an attitude free of any diva characteristics. 

Those models are in the minority.

For models outside that group, the  $25 -$40 suggested by Art of the Nude is probably on the high side.

natural beauties of qld wrote:

Art of the nude wrote:
In the vast majority of cases, for those categories, and for a photographer's portfolio rather than for an actual ad, you're going to be doing very well to get $25/hr.  Maybe $40 in LA.  That's not "typical" it's HIGH.  Now, for a commercial client, much more is possible.  Say $50-2,000 an hour.

I think that Kickham's figures would apply to models who have a good deal of experience (as opposed to having being around for a while but not having much to show for it), have the right look, are able to pose well, and have an attitude free of any diva characteristics. 

Those models are in the minority.

For models outside that group, the  $25 -$40 suggested by Art of the Nude is probably on the high side.

He spoke specifically of LA. And I disagree with you both even when talking about girls with less experience. Now, I'm not talking about cell phone portfolios, but that middle level you're speaking of.

$40 an hour is not high in LA.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Nah, $40 an hour for portfolio work isn't really "high" in LA. More like 100.

I know of girls booking non-nude pretty routinely at $75-100 an hour. That really depends on how many hours though. $150 or a two hour shoot, not bad. But I doubt most photographers would pay $600 for a six hour non-nude shoot. Not to say that it doesn't happen, as I'm sure it does, but you probably wouldn't book enough jobs for that to make sense.

I don't shoot in LA, but have seen similar here in Toronto.  The models who are getting $75 or more per hour for fashion/commercial portfolio work are those with agency stats.  Models who fall outside of agency standard are much more likely to make $25-40 for portfolio work, or even for some commercial work such as small designers or hair salons. 

And certainly as the length of shoot goes up, the hourly rate goes down.  A half day or full day won't necessarily net the model the same per hour as a 2 hour shoot.

The OP really needs to pick a number that would make her feel she is making enough money to cover her costs, and any lost income from other possible work - does she need to take time off a non-modelling job?  For instance if you have to take the day off from a retail job that pays $100 for an 8 hour day to shoot for 3 hours, then you probably should be charging about $100 (or maybe $35/hour).

Also consider experience, if you are new it might be worth while to have an affordable rate so you can get experience and work with a number of photographers.  As you get better you can raise your rates.  And even if the pictures are not worth working with a photographer, the actual experience on set might well be. 

Just my $0.02.

K I C K H A M wrote:
I think there is also a misconception that most models charge an hourly rate.

I *have* an hourly rate, in case someone asks for it or wants to do a 2 hour shoot, but generally speaking there is a rate or a specific shoot, and the more hours it is, the less it pays per hour.

Since shooting isn't standardized, these questions are really hard to answer.

There is no assumption about models charging any hourly rate.  The stats reported by the BLS are what those who hire models actually pay them as measured on an hourly basis - one needs to pick some unit of time and hourly is a common unit used for such data.

Whether one pays a model $80 for a four hour shoot or pays $20/hour for four hours, the rate or wage paid is measured and reported to the BLS is $20/hour.

I certainly agree that the hours per year models work varies considerably.  That's why I think annual salary information means much less than what hourly rates are. Most people are not hiring models on an annual salaried basis.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

There is no assumption about models charging any hourly rate.  The stats reported by the BLS are what those who hire models actually pay them as measured on an hourly basis - one needs to pick some unit of time and hourly is a common unit used for such data.

Whether one pays a model $80 for a four hour shoot or pays $20/hour for four hours, the rate or wage paid is measured and reported to the BLS is $20/hour.

I certainly agree that the hours per year models work varies considerably.  That's why I think annual salary information means much less than what hourly rates are. Most people are not hiring models on an annual salaried basis.

I meant there is an assumption in the community that models pay is per hour (hence all the newbies asking how much to charge per hour), not in the statistics.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Ignore all the crud you've already read here.  It's bogus. 

More than anything else, reasonable model rates depend on the local availability of suitable models!

In addition,
...  Not all models are created equal.
...  Not all photographers are created equal.
...  Not all projects are created equal.
...  Not all budgets are created equal.
...  Not all usages are created equal.

Bottom line:  your rates will vary from project to project and are significantly based on how much competition you have for the job.

I observe that so far in this thread, you are getting rate suggestions from all over the world.  Before you embrace these suggestions, ask yourself -- what do these people know about the rates here in Portland?


Rates is a topic for negotiation, and "negotiation" is something that many people (teenagers & adults) are not comfortable doing.  Fortunately, there are tons of self-help books, adult education classes, and even on-line web sites that cover the topic.  Learn those skills.

In the meantime, I would advise...
...  Learn as much about the job & the intended photo usages as possible,
...  Know your local competition & what they are charging/getting,
...  If possible, ask the client to suggest a price first -- it'll be a low ball, but it's
     a starting point,
...  Know your minimums -- as in, what is the minimum amount of money
     you'd accept?

Sorry -- there's no easy answer to your question.  A reasonable rate is simply the rate that makes both sides happy with the exchange.

Yep.

Another rule of thumb:
If you wish to set standard rates (mine vary or the project/ amount of hours/ intended use/ etc), then just pick a number. Let's say $30 an hour.

If you get flooded for offers, or people asking your rates automatically "Oh, great!" and you're having trouble finding time for all the shoots, it might be time to up your rates. If you're working the amount you want, and getting the right amount of offers, your rate is probably good. If everyone is trying to negotiate you way down, you aren't booking enough shoots, or people seem shocked when you quote your rates, it's probably time to bring them down.

That sweet spot, even if it seems low, is not necessarily indicative of your look or ability and could just be your market, what other girls are charging, etc.

K I C K H A M wrote:
I meant there is an assumption in the community that models pay is per hour (hence all the newbies asking how much to charge per hour), not in the statistics.

I get the impression that many are also not very aware of how much the model's experience also has a significant impact on the pay they can request as well.  Not just how much experience the model thinks she has, but the photographer's impression of the model's experience and proven ability to deliver.

As others (and you) have said, market is also a big factor, because pay in Portland is not typically going to be the same as in Los Angeles or New York.

Lastly, as you alluded to above...  and relating to market again... supply and demand.

Wynne Turner wrote:
I want to know some examples of your reasonable rates you charge for a paid shoot that does NOT benefit you, the photographer just keeps the photos. And for a model with experience. What are reasonable hourly rates for:

1. Fashion/Lifestyle Clothing
2. Fitness
3. Swimwear/Bikini

And do you think it's good to have a 2 hour minimum?

Reasonable is completely relative to ones location. Something that is reasonable for a place like LA, would likely be laughably high for parts of the Northeast.

Beyond that good luck getting paid for any clothed work, especially at 5'6". Can it happen? Yes. But its about as likely as my crappy Red Sox winning another World Series anytime soon.

Its nothing against you personally or your look. What do you bring to the shoot that a person can't get elsewhere on terms favorable to them?

Jim McSmith wrote:
10 bucks an hour is about reasonable. McDonalds and Starbucks are only paying minimum wage and they've got billions in surplus cash so I should think for a poor guy doing a shoot then around 10 bucks is a fair rate.

$10?!  No way.

You're nuts.

-Jen- wrote:

$10?!  No way.

You're nuts.

I've seen ads from schools with art classes offer $14/hour around here.  Might as well do a shoot for free at $10.  Lol

Miss Shilo wrote:
Reasonable rates depend what you're shooting. In my opinion, modeling is not comparable to say working as a barista in Starbucks where you have an hourly rate of say $10. Not only are you being paid for your work/time, but you are also traveling. You take into account the portfolio building, wardrobe expenses, time spent making sure you are ready for a shoot, transportation, ownership to the photos, ect, and I'd say that (for Chicago anyway) around $50/hour for an experienced model is very reasonable. You are hiring someone who you don't have to direct so much and can do their own thing...if you'd rather not pay for that, hire an amateur and be prepared to give more direction and possibly end up with lower quality images. If you are requesting a models services, be prepared to pay for them. Some photographers do the same thing to models who they wouldn't shoot with on a TF basis because they don't feel they'd be necessarily beneficial to their portfolio. This doesn't mean that they're not good--it just means it's not what the person usually shoots. Also, it's a job for people and a source of income, so of course people are going to take paid jobs over unpaid.

Nude work, in my opinion, should always be paid unless pre-established or for something else (publication, ect.), because sadly it is something that can come back and bite people with "normal" jobs as well sometimes (which, let's face it, is most of us...)

Nude should always be paid.  I agree with that.  It's very easy to make money with nude images, so the model definitely deserves consideration for that.

Wynne Turner wrote:
What are reasonable hourly rates for:

Reasonable it Portland?  Its all about what the local market will support.  Kelli is in a different market and experienced, not exactly a comparison to Portland.

Miss Shilo wrote:
Nude work, in my opinion, should always be paid unless pre-established or for something else (publication, ect.), because sadly it is something that can come back and bite people with "normal" jobs as well sometimes (which, let's face it, is most of us...)

Since the OP is 17 (and asking specifically about Fashion/Lifestyle Clothing, Fitness, Swimwear/Bikini), isn't "nude work should always be paid" kind of off-topic?

Wynne Turner wrote:
1. Fashion/Lifestyle Clothing
2. Fitness
3. Swimwear/Bikini

Charge for your time and skill as a model, not how much skin you show.

Many photographers will be put off by 'stripper rates'.

Wynne Turner wrote:
And do you think it's good to have a 2 hour minimum?

Yes, perfectly reasonable, along with half day and full day rates as well.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Will Snizek wrote:
Nude should always be paid.  I agree with that.  It's very easy to make money with nude images, so the model definitely deserves consideration for that.

Utter nonsense.

The market for nude images is so over-saturated that the idea that a photographer can automatically 'very easily' make money from them is a pure myth these days.

Models need images for their portfolio - even (and some may say especially) nude models. A girl who insists on being paid for nudes from day 1 is likely to end up shooting only with GWCs who will pay to see her naked. A certain level of quality is needed to attract decent photographers to pay a model, even for nudes.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Will Snizek wrote:
Nude should always be paid.  I agree with that.  It's very easy to make money with nude images, so the model definitely deserves consideration for that.

Not sure where you got that idea but its way off topic for the 17 year old model asking...

Jim McSmith wrote:
10 bucks an hour is about reasonable. McDonalds and Starbucks are only paying minimum wage and they've got billions in surplus cash so I should think for a poor guy doing a shoot then around 10 bucks is a fair rate.

That makes sense.

I assume this means you're going to go to McDonalds and hire their employees as your talent, right?

K I C K H A M wrote:

That makes sense.

I assume this means you're going to go to McDonalds and hire their employees as your talent, right?

I've seen some nice raw talent working in McDonalds!

K I C K H A M wrote:
Yep.

Another rule of thumb:
If you wish to set standard rates (mine vary or the project/ amount of hours/ intended use/ etc), then just pick a number. Let's say $30 an hour.

If you get flooded for offers, or people asking your rates automatically "Oh, great!" and you're having trouble finding time for all the shoots, it might be time to up your rates. If you're working the amount you want, and getting the right amount of offers, your rate is probably good. If everyone is trying to negotiate you way down, you aren't booking enough shoots, or people seem shocked when you quote your rates, it's probably time to bring them down.

That sweet spot, even if it seems low, is not necessarily indicative of your look or ability and could just be your market, what other girls are charging, etc.

This is the best advice on here.  You have to test the water and find out what works in your market.

Bravo Magic Images wrote:
Without showing college degree or modeling degree and just being a site model i feel the fair price is within 40 to 50 dollars per hour if you feel to get the more buck for your time then add min 2 hours instead of some photog writting to you
and asking to shoot for 1 houy Some models tend to go over the top and charge those high prices thinking they can go with the norm but in reality they are not getting called in to shoot. Good luck

Modeling degree????

DougBPhoto wrote:

Since the OP is 17 (and asking specifically about Fashion/Lifestyle Clothing, Fitness, Swimwear/Bikini), isn't "nude work should always be paid" kind of off-topic?

I did not see that. Obviously this doesn't apply to the OP then, however if she finds herself wanting to do nude work later in life (or someone who does shoot nudes) reads this then this is my two cents on the matter.